- (1.) THESE revision petitions have been filed against the order dated 6.4.2012 passed by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Sri Karanpur District Sri Ganganagar whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has taken cognizance against the present petitioners under Section 193, Cr.P.C. for the offences under Sections 307, 326, 323 IPC and in alternate under Sections 307, 323, 323, 34 IPC.
(2.) THE short facts of the case are that on parcha-bayan of the complainant, an FIR No. 181/2011 has been registered and after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against Rajendra @ Balram and Atma Ram and after committal of the case, the Sessions court has taken cognizance against the present petitioners under Section 193, Cr.P.C. which is against the settled proposition of law. Only the court with original jurisdiction could take cognizance under Section 193, Cr.P.C. and the committal court has no jurisdiction to call additional accused persons under Section 193 Cr.P.C. and reliance has been placed on Barkat Ali @ Bakki v. State of Rajasthan (2012 (2) Cr.L.R.(Raj.) 628) wherein it has been held as under:- "8. Suffice it to say that at the present, the law in this regard is well settled that in a sessions triable case, once the matter is committed to the Court of Sessions, then the Sessions Court has no power to summon an additional accused except at the stage of Section 319 Cr.P.C. after evidence has been recorded at the trial. The provision of Section 193 Cr.P.C. empowers the learned Sessions Judge to take cognizance of an additional offence, but does not empower the Court to summon an additional accused." Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has relied on judgment of Delhi High Court delivered in the case of Ravinder v. State (Criminal Revision Petition No. 126/2012) decided on 8.5.2012.
(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.;